Red Diesel
Brian Holt
I have copied the relevant bit below
quote
Diesel destined for marine use is currently chemically coloured red and
the price per litre is kept at a lower level than diesel used on the
roads, due to a reduced rate of duty. This exemption is due to cease on
31st December 2006. IWA, together with The Royal Yachting Association,
British Marine Federation and The Federation of Petroleum Suppliers, and
supported by other waterway organisations, has campaigned to retain the
exemption. The UK government, with input from the interested
organisations, submitted a Regulatory Impact Assessment to the Commission
and hoped that this would be sufficient to allow them to consider granting
renewal. Unfortunately this has not been the case and the UK government
has been told by the Commission that it will have to submit a formal
application for renewal as it will not recommend renewal. IWA is
disappointed at the Commission's unhelpful view so close to the deadline
for expiry.
Nevertheless, the UK government believes that there is sufficient desire
to allow not just this but other derogations to be renewed from member
states to overcome the Commission's position. The UK Government states
that it is still 'very determined' to get renewal on derogations and will
continue to fight for renewal and will use all the help it can get from
various groups in doing so.
Further counter-arguments have been made against ending the derogation.
The UK government is, therefore, seeking additional information on the
effects of removal of the derogation on remote areas e.g. loss of tourism
income, and examples of where the actions of the Commission in not
renewing counter to its actions in some other areas: e.g. where it has
invested in coastal areas and that investment is now being undermined by
the damage that would ensue if there was no derogation. IWA is now
encouraging its supporters to write to their MEPs. RYA's web site
(www.rya.org.uk/KnowledgeBase/legal/legalhomepagereddiesel.htm) offers
useful background facts on which to make a case.
unquote
--
Brian Ancient Order of Sewer Ants
Gibbo
We won't need red diesel once they've shut all the canals :-)
--
Gibbo
Emails to this email address are deleted at the server. I don't even get
to see them. If you need to email me you can do so via my website.
Nicholas D Richards
<br...@notharnser.info> writes
The Revenue and Customs impact assessment also makes useful reading:
http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.por
tal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_025356&p
ropertyType=document
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"
Canaldrifter
No probs.... we'll all go 'orsedrawn....
Tony H
Andrew Instone-Cowie
>
> The Revenue and Customs impact assessment also makes useful reading:
>
> http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.por
> tal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_025356&p
> ropertyType=document
>
Andrew
Heavyhorses
"Canaldrifter" <canald...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1160095047.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> No probs.... we'll all go 'orsedrawn....
>
> Tony H
Sorry but according to BW horses damage the tow path and then there is the
small point of at least £5 million public liability --
Could you tow a boat with a push bike ? (as long as you have downloaded
your permit of course ;-)
Uncle Marvo
f4pVg.90994$wg.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk, I, Marvo, say :
What about a dolphin?
Nicholas D Richards
isbitfortescue.org.uk> writes
>In reply to Heavyhorses (heavyh...@yahoo.co.uk) who wrote this in
>f4pVg.90994$wg.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk, I, Marvo, say :
>
>> "Canaldrifter" <canald...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1160095047.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> No probs.... we'll all go 'orsedrawn....
>>>
>>> Tony H
>>
>> Sorry but according to BW horses damage the tow path and then there
>> Could you tow a boat with a push bike ? (as long as you have
>> downloaded your permit of course ;-)
>
>What about a dolphin?
>
>
>
I believe the earliest canals used man haulage, horses were more
expensive. They would find a way of charging for man haulage. I am
surprised that the air has not been privatised and charged or taxed,
yet.
A different waterway, "The Song of the Volga Boatmen" is a haulage song,
for the men who used to haul the boats up the River Volga, which they
did well into the 19th century, men being cheaper than horses in Russia.
Uncle Marvo
this in p1GbwmCC...@salmiron.co.uk, I, Marvo, say :
> In article <4oml1cF...@individual.net>, Uncle Marvo
> <paul.r@deleteth isbitfortescue.org.uk> writes
>> In reply to Heavyhorses (heavyh...@yahoo.co.uk) who wrote this in
>> f4pVg.90994$wg.1...@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk, I, Marvo, say :
>>
>>> "Canaldrifter" <canald...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1160095047.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> No probs.... we'll all go 'orsedrawn....
>>>>
>>>> Tony H
>>>
>>> Sorry but according to BW horses damage the tow path and then there
>>> is the small point of at least £5 million public liability --
>>> Could you tow a boat with a push bike ? (as long as you have
>>> downloaded your permit of course ;-)
>>
>> What about a dolphin?
>>
>>
>>
>
> I believe the earliest canals used man haulage, horses were more
> expensive. They would find a way of charging for man haulage. I am
> surprised that the air has not been privatised and charged or taxed,
> yet.
>
> A different waterway, "The Song of the Volga Boatmen" is a haulage
> song, for the men who used to haul the boats up the River Volga,
> which they did well into the 19th century, men being cheaper than
> horses in Russia.
They're not in the UK. However, interstingly, DEFRA has one civil servant
per 100 cows. The cow are subsidised at $2.20 (US) per day, which is about
what the average thrid world citizen lives on.
The civil servants do .... nope, can't think of anything.
Brian J Goggin
Thanks for posting that. It's not surprising that it was rejected: the
document makes a very poor case for retention(*). It gives the
impression that HMRC have not thought much about the issues
themselves, or put much effort into researching them, but simply stuck
in anything that anyone had said to them. Some of the contentions are
either utterly implausible or of only minor importance; their
inclusion weakens the case as a whole. If HMRC really want to retain
the derogation, they'll have to put more work into it than they have
done so far.
The pity of it is that a strong case for the retention of the
derogation would be a strong case for recognising the importance of
the leisure-boating industry, which in turn would help the case for
opposition to the DEFRA cuts. What isn't coming out is any
comprehensive understanding of that industry; what's really needed is
an economic model that includes the size and impact of the industry
(eg in supporting rural areas) and assesses the factors that affect
growth or decline in the industry. That would take some academic
effort, but it would form a better basis for future argument than the
collection of anecdotes and unreliable surveys that HMRC has cobbled
together.
(*) Declaration of interest: I am opposed to retention of the
derogation. However, I'm not debating the merits of retention per se:
just commenting on the HMRC case.
bjg
Uncle Marvo
ejbci21cmo2j7g48c...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:37:44 +0100, Andrew Instone-Cowie
> <address-...@datagram.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Nicholas D Richards wrote:
>>>
>>> The Revenue and Customs impact assessment also makes useful reading:
>>>
>>> http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.por
>>> tal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageLibrary_ShowContent&id=HMCE_PROD1_025356&p
>>> ropertyType=document
>>>
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qacd2
>
[snip]
>
> The pity of it is that a strong case for the retention of the
> derogation would be a strong case for recognising the importance of
> the leisure-boating industry, which in turn would help the case for
> opposition to the DEFRA cuts. What isn't coming out is any
> comprehensive understanding of that industry; what's really needed is
> an economic model that includes the size and impact of the industry
> (eg in supporting rural areas) and assesses the factors that affect
> growth or decline in the industry. That would take some academic
> effort, but it would form a better basis for future argument than the
> collection of anecdotes and unreliable surveys that HMRC has cobbled
> together.
>
And why in particular would any government-led department want to break the
pattern and try to gain an understanding of the subject in hand?
[snip]
Julian
news:ejbci21cmo2j7g48c...@4ax.com...
> (*) Declaration of interest: I am opposed to retention of the
> derogation. However, I'm not debating the merits of retention per se:
> just commenting on the HMRC case.
Why are you opposed?
It can't be on environmental grounds as it will make no difference globally
to that, Its like one drop of water being added to the Atlantic ocean.
Other than that what grounds are there to object to it?
Besides which, despite what people would have you believe, its all to late
to stop global warming we are sliding down the slope and there are no brakes
available.
J
Canaldrifter
Julian wrote:
> its all to late
> to stop global warming we are sliding down the slope and there are no brakes
> available.
That's cos we're all in the same boat.... and boat's don't have
brakes..... (see thread on lock gates).
Tony H
Uncle Marvo
eg5coq$8qk$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk, I, Marvo, say :
> "Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
> news:ejbci21cmo2j7g48c...@4ax.com...
>> (*) Declaration of interest: I am opposed to retention of the
>> derogation. However, I'm not debating the merits of retention per se:
>> just commenting on the HMRC case.
>
> Why are you opposed?
> It can't be on environmental grounds as it will make no difference
> globally to that, Its like one drop of water being added to the
> Atlantic ocean. Other than that what grounds are there to object to
> it?
There can be none. I don't actually care much, I use so little of the stuff
but, selfishly, I like it, cos I pay less.
> Besides which, despite what people would have you believe, its all to
> late to stop global warming we are sliding down the slope and there
> are no brakes available.
>
We have already have global warming. We can stop it getting worse, each in
our small way. The best way to do this in a big way would be to lock up Pres
Bush for the foreseeable and tell Americans that driving cars will result on
an eternity of hellfire. That's all they understand.
You can try to argue with that but you'll be wasting my time if you do :-)
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Why are you opposed?
It's a subsidy from the poor to those with enough money to afford a
boat. I disapprove of such subsidies, even if I benefit from them. And
I know there are lots of them around; let's take them one at a time.
Accordingly, I have given the Irish Department of Finance a case for
opposing the continuation of the derogation, although I don't suppose
they'll pay any heed to a single citizen.
>Besides which, despite what people would have you believe, its all to late
>to stop global warming we are sliding down the slope and there are no brakes
>available.
There are brakes, but they won't be used. But that's a different
matter.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Why are you opposed?
A PS: I was thinking last night that I rather like the ideas of
Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, which seem rather unfashionable
nowadays. The Leaders of the Free World prate about something called
Democracy, which seems to mean (in the US) selecting one of two
millionaires as Dictator and (in the UK and Ireland) selecting one of
two and a half party leaders who have sold their souls to large
companies. But they don't mention Liberty, Equality and Fraternity,
which seem rather more valuable qualities than the versions of
Democracy currently on offer.
Red (and green) diesel represent Inequality, in my view.
That said, if people are going to argue for retention of the
derogation, I'd prefer if they made a decent case, instead of putting
forward stuff that reduces the credibility of the industry, which is
what I think the HMRC case does.
bjg
Uncle Marvo
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:56:35 +0100, "Julian" <jul...@negearth.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Why are you opposed?
>
> It's a subsidy from the poor to those with enough money to afford a
> boat. I disapprove of such subsidies, even if I benefit from them.
Good man yourself.
Julian
"Uncle Marvo" <pau...@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4omsuvF...@individual.net...
> We have already have global warming. We can stop it getting worse, each in
> our small way. The best way to do this in a big way would be to lock up
> Pres Bush for the foreseeable and tell Americans that driving cars will
> result on an eternity of hellfire. That's all they understand.
>
> You can try to argue with that but you'll be wasting my time if you do :-)
Won't argue with that what I will say is the there is only one real way to
stop global warming getting any worse and that is world population reduction
by something like 50%
Could start across the pond with the merkins :-)
J
Julian
"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
> boat. I disapprove of such subsidies, even if I benefit from them.
I dont see it as a subsidy I see it as an extra tax on white diesel to pay
for the roads and the environmental effects that road vehicles have.
J
Uncle Marvo
See, I actually agree with that. I know I shouldn't, but I do. The 'melican
bit, anyway.
But no, we don't need to reduce the population of the world. We need to stop
pissing resources up the wall though. We need wind/water farms to produce
electrickery, and run devices which are efficient, and that's the start of
it. We also need some form of travel which isn't filling the top bit with
gases, and we need above all to look at buying local stuff made by local
people from local stuff.
And anyone with a 4x4 is not eligible to join this argument. Or anyone who
eats Anchor butter, or NZ blueberries, or shops in Tesco or Matalan, and
there's not room for the rest of the details on this 'ere PC screen.
Crux of it. Individuals make a difference, not bands of idiots.
Uncle Marvo
f0jci2d5v8c8n4spj...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
> I have to disagree there, too many people is the root problem. And the
> fact that lots of them aspire to material standards that a small
> proportion have enjoyed for a long time.
>
It is a little radical, even for me, to cull the population of the world.
But OK, we'll give it a go.
If most people had the material standards I have, the world would be a
better place^W^Wbunch of pikeys. I reckon I've got less "stuff" than most
third world citizens. But I'm happier than most, most of the time.
I must 'fess up to buying an automatic electric kettle though, since I
nearly trashed the boat leaving the gas one on the hob all day and going
out. It probably came from China, by air, but I had no choice. We don't make
anything any more.
>> And anyone with a 4x4 is not eligible to join this argument. Or
>> anyone who eats Anchor butter, or NZ blueberries, or shops in Tesco
>> or Matalan, and there's not room for the rest of the details on this
>> 'ere PC screen.
>
> I don't agree about anchor butter, I assume it still comes here in
> ships. It's all the fresh food that's *flown* around the world which
> is ridiculous.
>
Perhaps they sail those ships these days. The last one I saw had a diesel
engine the size of a small African country. Yes, flying fresh food is
ridiculous. We seem to swap it for iPods.
NZ Blueberries have a carbon footprint of something like a million times
their own weight.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>I dont see it as a subsidy I see it as an extra tax on white diesel to pay
>for the roads and the environmental effects that road vehicles have.
Well, there we go.
I suppose I should add that I have less objection to subsidies for
modest users of diesel, like narrowboats and barges, than those for
the twin-250hp jobbies we are now getting on Irish inland waterways.
bjg
Dave Larrington
> I don't agree about anchor butter, I assume it still comes here in
> ships. It's all the fresh food that's *flown* around the world which
> is ridiculous.
The main objection I have to Anchor butter is not that it comes all the way
from New Toyland, but rather that it tastes absolutely vile. I don't know
what they put in it, or leave out of it, that makes it so, but I wouldn't
even use it to torment butterophobics.
Meanwhile the state of California sues the Detroit car makers for causing
greenhouse gas emissions, not stopping to think that they are bought and
operated by Californians.
This all goes to show something, although I'm sure I don't know what.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Tip of the Day: 20%
Julian
"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
one......
pats 400hp single cylinder
J
Julian
> We need wind/water farms to produce electrickery, and run devices which >
> are efficient, and that's the start of it.
I read somewhere that it takes almost the life of a windturbine before it
has produced the same amount of energy that was used in making it.
First thing to do is ban air travel for pleasure, no jetting off on a cheap
flight for a holiday.
Cut down or ban airmiles on food, locally produced food in local areas, so,
you cant have a mango when you want one, so what.
Get rid of cattle they produce worse greenhouse gasses than cars and the
rain forest is being destroyed to feed the merkins on beef.......
better stop now.............
J
Uncle Marvo
> "Uncle Marvo" <pau...@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:4on05dF...@individual.net...
>> We need wind/water farms to produce electrickery, and run devices
>> which > are efficient, and that's the start of it.
>
> I read somewhere that it takes almost the life of a windturbine
> before it has produced the same amount of energy that was used in
> making it.
That is absolutement bolleaux. Our little farm here powers 8,000 homes. I
would be most interested to see which twonk has put misinformation like that
on the t'internet though, just so I can have some considerable fun.
> First thing to do is ban air travel for pleasure, no jetting off on a
> cheap flight for a holiday.
Correct. I'm going on one in a couple of weeks, assuming it would have gone
anyway whether I was on it or not, such a hypocritical Marvo that I be.
> Cut down or ban airmiles on food, locally produced food in local
> areas, so, you cant have a mango when you want one, so what.
Yes. I can't live without rice though.
> Get rid of cattle they produce worse greenhouse gasses than cars and
> the rain forest is being destroyed to feed the merkins on beef.......
>
As long as we Brits can still have beef ...
> better stop now.............
>
Don't you dare stop!
Uncle Marvo
Good one. I like that, and it's workable.
> pats 400hp single cylinder
>
Thorneycroft 1550/4.
Don't even ASK Brian!
Julian
> That is absolutement bolleaux. Our little farm here powers 8,000 homes. I
> would be most interested to see which twonk has put misinformation like
> that on the t'internet though, just so I can have some considerable fun.
Type of Power Plant Payback
(Months)
Nuclear 0.7
Coal 0.7
Wind @ 7 m/s 2.5 - 7.5
Wind @ 5.5 m/s 3.8 - 11.4
Wind @ 4 m/s 6.3 - 22.7
Photovoltaic:
Monocrystalline @ 1,000 W/m2 87
Monocrystalline @ 2,200 W/m2 44
Multicrystalline @ 1,000 W/m2 85
Multicrystalline @ 2,200 W/m2 43
Amorphous @ 1,000 W/m2 56
Amorphous @ 2,200 W/m2 28
Uncle Marvo
> One thing that gets my goat is the way some news media (BBC Breakfast
> being a good example) don't seem to be able to distinguish between
> electrical (photovoltaic) solar panels which are close to being a
> waste of time for domestic generation (see above), and water heating
> solar panels, which are not.
>
It's a good point. Another thing that gets my goat is the way some news
media (BBC Breakfast being a good exapmle) don't seem able to distinguish
between a silk purse and a sow's ear.
I think we've all learned now to take everything they say as utter cr@p.
And me, come to that.
Canaldrifter
Dave Larrington wrote:
>
> The main objection I have to Anchor butter is not that it comes all the way
> from New Toyland, but rather that it tastes absolutely vile.
We're supposed to eat it??
I thought it wuz for greasing up the anchor.....
Tony H
Brian J Goggin
<pau...@deletethisbitfortescue.org.uk> wrote:
>Yes. I can't live without rice though.
With global warming, they'll be growing it in the East Anglian
paddy-fields. And where London used to be,
bjg
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>Type of Power Plant Payback
>(Months)
>Nuclear 0.7
And how long to clean up afterwards?
bjg
Nicholas D Richards
<smert.s...@privacy.net> writes
>Tim Leech wrote:
>
>> I don't agree about anchor butter, I assume it still comes here in
>> ships. It's all the fresh food that's *flown* around the world which
>> is ridiculous.
>
>The main objection I have to Anchor butter is not that it comes all the way
>from New Toyland, but rather that it tastes absolutely vile.
Funny that, I find the European version vile. If there is no Anchor, I
go without. I do not object to your European/British choice, please
leave me mine.
> I don't know
>what they put in it, or leave out of it, that makes it so, but I wouldn't
>even use it to torment butterophobics.
>
>Meanwhile the state of California sues the Detroit car makers for causing
>greenhouse gas emissions, not stopping to think that they are bought and
>operated by Californians.
>
>This all goes to show something, although I'm sure I don't know what.
>
--
Nicholas David Richards -
"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"
Brian J Goggin
<canald...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
Now, that's cheese you're thinking of:
http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2006/oct/dairy
bjg
Will Chapman
>
> Besides which, despite what people would have you believe, its all to late
> to stop global warming we are sliding down the slope and there are no brakes
> available.
>
I don't have any brakes on my boat either but I can stop
and swerve to avoid collisons....<g>
Cheers..
Will Chapman
nb Quidditch
g...@sdfg.co.uk
Brian J Goggin wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:56:35 +0100, "Julian" <jul...@negearth.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Why are you opposed?
>
> It's a subsidy from the poor to those with enough money to afford a
> boat.
Terminology, terminology!
A lower tax rate is not a subsidy.
A higher one, however, can be very unfair.
Adrian
g...@sdfg.co.uk
Brian J Goggin wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 11:56:35 +0100, "Julian" <jul...@negearth.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Why are you opposed?
>
> It's a subsidy from the poor to those with enough money to afford a
> boat.
Terminology, terminology!
A lower tax rate is not a subsidy.
Adrian
g...@sdfg.co.uk
Uncle Marvo wrote:
> In reply to Tim Leech (dutto...@onetel.no.spam.com) who wrote this in
> f0jci2d5v8c8n4spj...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
> > I have to disagree there, too many people is the root problem. And the
> > fact that lots of them aspire to material standards that a small
> > proportion have enjoyed for a long time.
> >
> It is a little radical, even for me, to cull the population of the world.
> But OK, we'll give it a go.
Warning. What follows is depressing.
Tim is right. And the problem is very, very serious.
Global warming is caused by the total emissions of humanity.
Those total emissions are made up of:
Average emissions per person X Number of people
Average emissions per person is going up, and will continue to do so
even if everyone in Texas switches from Hummers to Priuses and we all
recycle our Tesco bags. That's because the standard of living (and
thus the emissions) of all thosee people in e.g. China and India is
increasing so rapidly. And they aren't going to allow anyone to stop
that.
So the solution has to be to decrease the number of people.
But that is going up too, and is estimated to be well over double what
it is now by the mid 2100s.
In reality, humanity is very likely not to survive what this is going
to do to the environment. Even if it does, your grandchildren will
almost certainly never see a tiger, rhino, sturgeon, halibut,
songthrush (the list goes on depressingly, and literally makes me want
to weep), because we are killing too many of them and removing the
habitat (or changing the climate requirements) of the rest.
However, if we reduce the global birth rate below replacement level, we
just may still have a chance.
And, in fact, reducing the birth rate can be good for each individual,
provided the folk in poor countries can be shown they don't need lots
of kids to support them in their old age, so it looks feasible.
But the oh-so-intelligent leaders of some countries where the birth
rate is already below replacement level (e.g. Malaysia, Germany,
France) are now complaining about the "shortage of babies", and giving
tax breaks to women who have more kids.
I wish I could think of something funny to write to end this posting.
I can't. There are simply too many of us.
How could we be so stupid, and willing to destroy something so
beautiful?
Adrian
Brian J Goggin
>Global warming is caused by the total emissions of humanity.
>
>Those total emissions are made up of:
>
>Average emissions per person X Number of people
>
>Average emissions per person is going up, and will continue to do so
>even if everyone in Texas switches from Hummers to Priuses and we all
>recycle our Tesco bags. That's because the standard of living (and
>thus the emissions) of all thosee people in e.g. China and India is
>increasing so rapidly. And they aren't going to allow anyone to stop
>that.
On the other hand, their emissions are very far below those of the
average American or European. Switching from Hummer to Prius is not
what we need: it's switching from Hummer to train, cutting the
standard of living of Europeans and Americans, grounding all
aeroplanes except rescue helicopters and a few other modest steps like
that.
This will cause the collapse of the current version of the
growth-obsessed capitalist economy, which will be a Good Thing, and we
will have to eat local food, which will be even better. And we won't
have Imperial Trading Stations (eg Maplin, Tesco) selling us crap any
longer: without air transport and with limited road transport, their
businesses will collapse.
It would be very easy to bring these changes about. All we have to do
is to assemble some Captains of Industry in a room and offer them a
choice: shut down their businesses or find a wind-powered Black &
Decker applied to their kneecaps. The existing political and economic
systems can't cope with the changes necessary, but so what?
The People United Will Never Be Defeated. It's all about power,
really.
>So the solution has to be to decrease the number of people.
Let's start with Dick Cheney.
bjg
Brian J Goggin
>A lower tax rate is not a subsidy.
We've had this before. Some economists disagree with you.
bjg
Uncle Marvo
okbdi29rvd1on9rv5...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
Ooh, I do so enjoy your posts, Brian. First-class eco-Trot stuff. Most
excellent.
And, in response to the last chap "How could we be so stupid, and willing to
destroy something so
beautiful?" I add :
Ask DEFRA. They seem so good at it.
Mike
"Brian J Goggin" <myinitialsATmyorganization.ie> wrote in message
Economists? And what the do they know? Why should I pay road tax on my
heating oil?
Uncle Marvo
ipoki29dvc8320sja...@4ax.com, I, Marvo, say :
> You could probably live without importing wheat and soya additives
> from the USA too.
>
I find it bonkers that we use so much Canadian wheat, but we don't seem to
be able to grow it. German is a good substitute, but not the same.
> In a recent survey I made in Whitby Co-op no bread was without soya
> additives, including Hovis organic bread.
>
I am looking into this ... it should not be so.
Brian J Goggin
<michael....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Economists? And what the do they know? Why should I pay road tax on my
>heating oil?
Some folk ceased reading the newspapers in 1923 and haven't realised
that there is no Road Fund. Economists, on the other hand, do know
that.
bjg